new anti quad law project in WA state

[Ciprian]

This is due for voting in a few days by WA reps:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary. ... &year=2015
There's a "Comment on this bill" button on that web page. Maybe you should share your opinions (especially if you're a WA resident).

The bill is here: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/ ... s/1093.pdf
It says:
(b) Any image of a person taken from any location in the Washington state airspace, when the person whose image has been captured is on private property, the landowner and tenants with a right to occupy the private property have not consented to the capture of images of their person on the property, and the taking of such an image is in violation of the reasonable expectation of privacy of the person. The legislature finds and declares that except as otherwise required by the first amendment of the United States Constitution, the reasonable expectation of privacy of a person whose image has been captured under the circumstances described in this subsection (3)(b) has been violated when the image could not have been captured from outside the boundaries of the property on which the person is located [...]

Personally, I'm surprised why politicians rush to vote such initiatives without really gathering data about the new technology. :evil:
- I think there's too much fear about privacy concerns related to quads without understanding what can be done with a small quad like a Phantom
- it seems like it may become illegal to take a picture from an airplane (G airspace) because privacy concerns
- the inovation may be restricted in WA state - with such restrictive laws, I'm quite sure, Boeing, Amazon and many small companies or individual engineers won't be able to experiment and inovate anymore

 

[GoodnNuff]

Hey, can you fix your links please? Neither works.
Not sure if your here in WA or not, but I'd love to make a comment on the bill. I didn't realize it was up for vote this soon.

I had posted about this earlier:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=33829

 

[Meta4]

Reading the actual proposed bill they say Any image of a person taken from any location in the Washington state airspace .... So it's not prohibiting drone photography but trying to address the (probably imagined) invasion of privacy that drones could provide. In reality, if you're flying close enough to get a recognisable image of a person, they are going to know you are there. We all know that Phantoms are the least effective spy devices - good for getting an image of a property but bad for getting images of people on that property.

 

[Ciprian]

Hey, can you fix your links please? Neither works.
Not sure if your here in WA or not, but I'd love to make a comment on the bill. I didn't realize it was up for vote this soon.

I had posted about this earlier:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=33829

I've fixed the links. Thanks for pointing out that my links were not working.

 

[Ciprian]

Reading the actual proposed bill they say Any image of a person taken from any location in the Washington state airspace .... So it's not prohibiting drone photography but trying to address the (probably imagined) invasion of privacy that drones could provide. In reality, if you're flying close enough to get a recognisable image of a person, they are going to know you are there. We all know that Phantoms are the least effective spy devices - good for getting an image of a property but bad for getting images of people on that property.

I totally agree with you, Meta4. That's my point too.
Some politicians try to gather some extra votes by this apparent extra concern about privacy and voting laws to create the illusion of security or privacy.

There's the "castle" idea, where your property goes up into the sky. But, airplanes can travel just fine 500 feet over property (and even lower if you're closer to an airport). Airspace over somebody's property (from a specific hight) is aerial highway...
I guess it's one thing to go over somebody's house (at 20-50 feet away) and hover there, and it's different to just zoom over a corner of some private property to get somewhere.
I'm afraid that many WA reps are not even aware the technical photography limitations of a small drone (like Phantom) as long as the quad is far away and moving. In theory this law can create problems for big companies like Google (no more aerial view), Amazon (kill the drone delivery idea in Amazon's home state), Boeing and others...
We all know that Phantoms are not effective spy devices, but I think the public opinion and law makers perceptions are different.

 

[kitari]

I bet this is going to become a trend for each state soon. Well I'm ready to fight because, THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAA!... I mean, this is a great hobby, and I'd hate for it to be regulated into the ground until you have to get a commercial pilot's licence and a background check just to fly one on a teather at under 200ft.

 

[sdtrojan]

These people really need to get a life and start trying to solve real problems with all the energy they seem to have. Hell, I try to include a short cameo of myself in my short videos I post for my father to see and I have to get pretty close before it is an effective shot. Anyone who violates someone personal space with a drone probably deserves a smackdown, but legislating this stuff really is a waste of resources. This is a lot of sqwuak about nothing.

 

[locoworks]

So how are news and law enforcement helicopters going to get on with this law?

 

[Molokai]

What I don't get is why people think we WANT to spy on them. Do they think they're special enough to spy on?

 

[cdusher]

Sounds a little confusing. Since when have we had reasonable expectation of privacy standing on our front lawn.
If I'm worried about it guess I'll wear a mask.

 

[ZeekArmy]

...and of course the government is going to obey the law right?..Right? Yet another dictation on what we can and cannot do yet the government, university, and state run drones overhead, the facial recognition scanners, the licsense plate scanner...privacy, yea right. What world do you people live in anyway? Phones, cars, watches, most mobile devices even your online and TV viewing habits are tracked 24/7...
Only privacy I have found to fly is in the forest but even then, you have to pay for a discover pass or they fine you and the rangers are usually not so nice when you whip a UAV out with a camera and FPV setup. I will still fly and photograph the forest and nature reguardless of any law telling me I can't. If some moron wants to walk into a shot with an aireal vehicle then that is not a problem of mine, especially when this idiot has the entire world yet decides he wants to be where I am in the middle of nowhere in the mountains...at the same time. Then complain I am violating his privacy...I asked him if he was born stupid or did he go to school to learn how to be stupid...now the friggin chipmunks are using anti-air artillery to mess my shots up...*

Sorry for the rant, just happened

 

[GoodnNuff]

...and of course the government is going to obey the law right?..Right? Yet another dictation on what we can and cannot do yet the government, university, and state run drones overhead, the facial recognition scanners, the licsense plate scanner...privacy, yea right. What world do you people live in anyway? Phones, cars, watches, most mobile devices even your online and TV viewing habits are tracked 24/7...
Only privacy I have found to fly is in the forest but even then, you have to pay for a discover pass or they fine you and the rangers are usually not so nice when you whip a UAV out with a camera and FPV setup. I will still fly and photograph the forest and nature reguardless of any law telling me I can't. If some moron wants to walk into a shot with an aireal vehicle then that is not a problem of mine, especially when this idiot has the entire world yet decides he wants to be where I am in the middle of nowhere in the mountains...at the same time. Then complain I am violating his privacy...I asked him if he was born stupid or did he go to school to learn how to be stupid...now the friggin chipmunks are using anti-air artillery to mess my shots up...*

Sorry for the rant, just happened

From the proposed law:

(b) Any image of a person taken from any location in the Washington state airspace, when the person whose image has been captured is on private property, the landowner and tenants with a right to occupy the private property have not consented to the capture of images of their person on the property, and the taking of such an image is in violation of the reasonable expectation of privacy of the person.

I think you are ok flying in the forest, even if an "moron" walks into your view, since you nor they, are on private property.
Even my watch is tracking me eh? :shock:

 

[OCS12]

I sure hope the news stations are ready to blur a whole lot of images! Even the traffic helicopters accidentally catch images of people in their yards that live near the highways. Almost every video shot from a news helicopter would be open to lawsuits! I love when legislators don't think things through.

 

[Ciprian]

I took 2 images earlier today from 100 feet and 50 feet using my Phantom Vision 2+.
The pictues themselves can answer privacy concerns. I doubt somebody can really recognize my face by using these pictures. Please feel free to click on the images to see them at maximum resolution (4384 x 2466 pixels)

from 100 feet (distance)

from 50 feet (distance)

I understand that in the future we can get better cameras.
But privacy can be better protected and enforced, for example, by laws preventing publishing or distribution of pictures from somebody's backyard where people faces can be recognized in those pictures. We really need to understand what's the real concern about the invasion of privacy. It will be a waste of police resources to search SD cards from UAVs for privacy violations. Personally, I don't care if somebody takes a picture of me when I'm in my backyard. Neighbors can get better pictures of my backyard from their own houses (because they can use zoom lens) than flying a UAV over my property.
If I want privacy inside my house, I can use my window blinds. When I'm outside (even in my backyard), I'm aware that I should use common sense (some pictures can be taken from an airplane anyway, no matter what laws are voted). And if a small UAV is 300 feet high, it's very hard to see it (and hear it).

And frankly, if we're really concerned about privacy we may ask for laws:
- against neighbors watch
- limitation of HOA rules
- invasive TSA searches at airports
- government collection of personal data
- etc

As a side note, if you look at the poll about the medium age of Phantom operators, the average is around 50 years. Maybe reps consider that only teenager boys are using Phantoms to take picture of girls but this is a very wrong perception.
I'm not using my Phantom for close ups. If I want to spy somebody, I'll probably use very good zoom lens or a telescope. My Phantom is used to take landscape pictures, mountains, forests, ocean shores, beautiful buildings, etc... And most of the time I actually fly my Phantom without even recording, just for the love of flying...

 

[terrylowe]

I think we all know that the Phantom is not a very good spy toy. However the general public, legislators and media do not know that.

The media decided that quadcopters are evil and many legislators feel that they have to legislate whatever the media is talking about this week. We are having a similar issue in Mississippi. The writer of the Mississippi bill has NO idea what he is talking about as he tries to explain why the legislation is needed. The press covering the bill says that anyone can get a predator in Walmart now.

I think we need to pass a law that says that lawmakers do a little research on a topic before they try to pass laws about it.

 

[Ciprian]

I think we all know that the Phantom is not a very good spy toy. However the general public, legislators and media do not know that.

The media decided that quadcopters are evil and many legislators feel that they have to legislate whatever the media is talking about this week. We are having a similar issue in Mississippi. The writer of the Mississippi bill has NO idea what he is talking about as he tries to explain why the legislation is needed. The press covering the bill says that anyone can get a predator in Walmart now.

I think we need to pass a law that says that lawmakers do a little research on a topic before they try to pass laws about it.

The media's shooting itself in the foot. Later, they'll realize that's a good idea to save money and use small UAVs for news coverage instead of full size helicopter. I understand, it's fun to ride a helicopter, but it costs money

Unfortunatelly, the politicians are indeed voting on whatever the media is talking about this week and especially on subjects prone to bring extra votes. Is there a privacy concern because what was exposed regarding government surveillance programs? Let's show the people that we care about their privacy by restricting recreational UAV use. How do we fight for security? We create new TSA rules, we bring full body X-Ray scanners in the airports, we make sure that no liquids (including baby milk) can't go through security gates, no shoes or belts, just to create an illusion of security by a strong invasion of travellers privacy. Let's not forget that most of criminals are discovered by old police work, by informations received from citizens. But wait, privacy is super important and let's make sure that's absolutely illegal for citizens to fly their small UAVs over private property. It's a big irony here.

 

[Eastbayvision]

It is my opinion that there is a small subset of phantom owners who are flying them around the neighborhood willy nilly. This is not only a safety hazard, but it could become quite annoying. Imagine if your nosy neighbor from across the street sent his drone up in the air while you were entertaining guests in the back yard? These are the types of complaints which make the evening news and get opponents to write their representatives. This small group of irresponsible quad owners will soon make Ariel photography a thing of the past. If you are going to be flying near other people, it is the right thing to do to at least let them know what you are up to and perhaps introduce them to the hobby.

 

[The Editor]

It is my opinion that there is a small subset of phantom owners who are flying them around the neighborhood willy nilly. This is not only a safety hazard, but it could become quite annoying. Imagine if your nosy neighbor from across the street sent his drone up in the air while you were entertaining guests in the back yard? These are the types of complaints which make the evening news and get opponents to write their representatives. This small group of irresponsible quad owners will soon make Ariel photography a thing of the past. If you are going to be flying near other people, it is the right thing to do to at least let them know what you are up to and perhaps introduce them to the hobby.

+1

Yup - And these people are exactly the same people who will carry on doing the same thing irrespective of any legislation passed!
They are acting irresponsible/illegally now so why would a piece of legislation stop them in the future?